|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 26, 2016 13:57:55 GMT -5
And UW won't get credit for their win at a very tough Hawaii, either. They will get credit for being sole Pac-12 champion, if they can get past WSU. They did just beat #8 RPI UCLA, however.
On the other hand, the Committee could be looking for an excuse to site a regional outside the Central Time Zone. If Kansas is #4 and UW #5, that would be better than going to Nebraska, Minnesota, or Wisconsin. And if Kansas can't host, UW would, unless Hawaii beats UW in the Seattle sub-regional, in which case Hawaii would.
|
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 26, 2016 14:08:17 GMT -5
I think that's fair though. Wins over elite teams is what sets the top teams apart, not accumulating several against decent teams. For example, it's more difficult to go 3-0 against Wisconsin/Maryland/Rutgers than to go 3-0 against Illinois/Ohio St/Purdue. You missed my point though. Had Utah won against Arizona and Colorado they WOULD have been a top 25 team rpi team. Well Washington beat those teams, so the relative wins within conference shouldn't (IMO) change based on who those teams win and lose to within conference. What makes an "elite" team over a "decent" team? Wins, obviously. But I think it's kind of a weak argument to suggest that Team A beats Team B, C, and D but that Team A's win over team B IS MORE impressive if Team B also beat team C and D, and LESS impressive if Team B splits or loses to team C and D. Why does it matter if team A beats all them anyway? Using a big 10 example, let's say PSU, OSU, Purdue and the Michigan's ended up in a compete bloodbath with each other and northwestern, Illinois, and Iowa. Because they all lost to each other, none would probably have a top 25 RPI especially if teams from other conferences had less parity. So, if Nebraska won against all those other teams, the essential arguement is that Nebraska's record is less impressive because the teams it won against beat each other up. That it's what other teams do in conference that makes your own record more or less impressive. I think that is some faulty reasoning given the fact all the teams play each other (save the unbalanced schedule quirks). Saying that Washington's record would be more impressive had Utah won against two teams Washington already beat is silly. It would be different it Washington DIDNT play Colorado or Arizona, but they did. The thing is that Nebraska and Minnesota and Wisconsin have enough great wins that a team or two falling out of the Top 25 wouldn't impact them in the same way. You're responding to the fact that UW is just very thin on top tier wins. If they hold on to the conference crown I don't think it will end up mattering though - I like their chances at hosting a regional. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 26, 2016 14:18:40 GMT -5
You missed my point though. Had Utah won against Arizona and Colorado they WOULD have been a top 25 team rpi team. Well Washington beat those teams, so the relative wins within conference shouldn't (IMO) change based on who those teams win and lose to within conference. What makes an "elite" team over a "decent" team? Wins, obviously. But I think it's kind of a weak argument to suggest that Team A beats Team B, C, and D but that Team A's win over team B IS MORE impressive if Team B also beat team C and D, and LESS impressive if Team B splits or loses to team C and D. Why does it matter if team A beats all them anyway? Using a big 10 example, let's say PSU, OSU, Purdue and the Michigan's ended up in a compete bloodbath with each other and northwestern, Illinois, and Iowa. Because they all lost to each other, none would probably have a top 25 RPI especially if teams from other conferences had less parity. So, if Nebraska won against all those other teams, the essential arguement is that Nebraska's record is less impressive because the teams it won against beat each other up. That it's what other teams do in conference that makes your own record more or less impressive. I think that is some faulty reasoning given the fact all the teams play each other (save the unbalanced schedule quirks). Saying that Washington's record would be more impressive had Utah won against two teams Washington already beat is silly. It would be different it Washington DIDNT play Colorado or Arizona, but they did. The thing is that Nebraska and Minnesota and Wisconsin have enough great wins that a team or two falling out of the Top 25 wouldn't impact them in the same way. You're responding to the fact that UW is just very thin on top tier wins. If they hold on to the conference crown I don't think it will end up mattering though - I like their chances at hosting a regional. Well my comments surely impact my team, but I make them objectively and would apply it to any team. I understand that some objective measures have to be in place, but I think that winning against teams that lose against each other within conference is just an awkward argument to make in terms of quality of win. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 26, 2016 14:44:25 GMT -5
And using an objectively flawed metric with a built-in bias against western teams.
RPI Top 25:
Western Teams (6):
Pac-12: 4 teams (if Utah falls out)
WCC: 2 teams
Eastern Teams (18):
Big Ten: 7 teams
Big-12: 4 teams
SEC: 4 teams
ACC: 2 teams (if FSU steps up)
Big East: 1 team
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 15:22:33 GMT -5
HOPING for something close to this (if Wisconsin and Nebraska win tonight):
1. Nebraska
16. Western Kentucky/Kansas State/Creighton/who cares
9. North Carolina
8. Florida
5. Washington
12. BYU
13. Michigan State
4. Kansas
3. Minnesota
14. Michigan
11. Stanford
6. Texas
7. Missouri
10. UCLA
15. San Diego
2. Wisconsin
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 26, 2016 15:29:06 GMT -5
I think that's fair though. Wins over elite teams is what sets the top teams apart, not accumulating several against decent teams. For example, it's more difficult to go 3-0 against Wisconsin/Maryland/Rutgers than to go 3-0 against Illinois/Ohio St/Purdue. You missed my point though. Had Utah won against Arizona and Colorado they WOULD have been a top 25 team rpi team. Well Washington beat those teams, so the relative wins within conference shouldn't (IMO) change based on who those teams win and lose to within conference. What makes an "elite" team over a "decent" team? Wins, obviously. But I think it's kind of a weak argument to suggest that Team A beats Team B, C, and D but that Team A's win over team B IS MORE impressive if Team B also beat team C and D, and LESS impressive if Team B splits or loses to team C and D. Why does it matter if team A beats all them anyway? Using a big 10 example, let's say PSU, OSU, Purdue and the Michigan's ended up in a compete bloodbath with each other and northwestern, Illinois, and Iowa. Because they all lost to each other, none would probably have a top 25 RPI especially if teams from other conferences had less parity. So, if Nebraska won against all those other teams, the essential arguement is that Nebraska's record is less impressive because the teams it won against beat each other up. That it's what other teams do in conference that makes your own record more or less impressive. I think that is some faulty reasoning given the fact all the teams play each other (save the unbalanced schedule quirks). Saying that Washington's record would be more impressive had Utah won against two teams Washington already beat is silly. It would be different it Washington DIDNT play Colorado or Arizona, but they did. No, I totally understand your point and disagree. If Utah had beaten Colorado everybody would've considered them better - me, you, AVCA, Pablo, RPI. As it is, they're a team whose bad days are bad enough to lose to a team that won't make the tournament (Colorado). This is not at all unique to the RPI. If Penn State ends up in a bloodbath involving Northwestern and Iowa, then they are CONSIDERABLY worse than they actually are this year because they're capable of losing to Iowa and Northwestern. |
|
|
|
Post by bkedane on Nov 26, 2016 15:29:27 GMT -5
And using an objectively flawed metric with a built-in bias against western teams. RPI Top 25: Western Teams (6): Pac-12: 4 teams (if Utah falls out) WCC: 2 teams Eastern Teams (18): Big Ten: 7 teams Big-12: 4 teams SEC: 4 teams ACC: 2 teams (if FSU steps up) Big East: 1 team If you think the bias that exists is "built-in" to RPI then you don't understand the bias. I also wonder about the geography that classifies east and west as you do. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 26, 2016 15:58:31 GMT -5
The primary bias is that it ignores that many more teams with higher win-loss ratios are available to schedule in the east (due to many more conferences) than in the west, with western teams forced to travel east and little incentive for eastern teams to travel west (unless paid to do so).
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 26, 2016 16:24:09 GMT -5
You missed my point though. Had Utah won against Arizona and Colorado they WOULD have been a top 25 team rpi team. Well Washington beat those teams, so the relative wins within conference shouldn't (IMO) change based on who those teams win and lose to within conference. What makes an "elite" team over a "decent" team? Wins, obviously. But I think it's kind of a weak argument to suggest that Team A beats Team B, C, and D but that Team A's win over team B IS MORE impressive if Team B also beat team C and D, and LESS impressive if Team B splits or loses to team C and D. Why does it matter if team A beats all them anyway? Using a big 10 example, let's say PSU, OSU, Purdue and the Michigan's ended up in a compete bloodbath with each other and northwestern, Illinois, and Iowa. Because they all lost to each other, none would probably have a top 25 RPI especially if teams from other conferences had less parity. So, if Nebraska won against all those other teams, the essential arguement is that Nebraska's record is less impressive because the teams it won against beat each other up. That it's what other teams do in conference that makes your own record more or less impressive. I think that is some faulty reasoning given the fact all the teams play each other (save the unbalanced schedule quirks). Saying that Washington's record would be more impressive had Utah won against two teams Washington already beat is silly. It would be different it Washington DIDNT play Colorado or Arizona, but they did. No, I totally understand your point and disagree. If Utah had beaten Colorado everybody would've considered them better - me, you, AVCA, Pablo, RPI. As it is, they're a team whose bad days are bad enough to lose to a team that won't make the tournament (Colorado). This is not at all unique to the RPI. If Penn State ends up in a bloodbath involving Northwestern and Iowa, then they are CONSIDERABLY worse than they actually are this year because they're capable of losing to Iowa and Northwestern. But you are clearly taking the penalty in a loss scenario rather than the middling of conference play. How about instead of PSU being "considerably worse", northwestern and Iowa are distinctly better, especially when it comes to the top two conferences. The negative factor of playing in the top conferences is that it gives you more opportunity to acculumate losses, but the problem is that losses compound across conference teams, and relative eveness across teams does not equate to mediocrity, nationally. If you put a number of the middle pac 12 and big 10 teams up against at larges from some of the other conferences, I bet most volley talkers would pick the middle pac 12 and big 10 teams. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 26, 2016 17:00:16 GMT -5
Also, conferences that skip more in-conference opponents are advantaged in that it allows more teams to accumulate wins and avoid losses than would otherwise be the case (in a round-robin schedule). Each Big Ten team skips six conference matches, while each Pac-12 team skips two conference matches.
|
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 26, 2016 17:21:35 GMT -5
The thing is that Nebraska and Minnesota and Wisconsin have enough great wins that a team or two falling out of the Top 25 wouldn't impact them in the same way. You're responding to the fact that UW is just very thin on top tier wins. If they hold on to the conference crown I don't think it will end up mattering though - I like their chances at hosting a regional. Well my comments surely impact my team, but I make them objectively and would apply it to any team. I understand that some objective measures have to be in place, but I think that winning against teams that lose against each other within conference is just an awkward argument to make in terms of quality of win. Getting beat by Arizona isn't keeping Utah out of the Top 25. Losses to Illinois St. and Gonzaga are. And Colorado without Gabby is pretty shocking. I don't have a problem with that changing the evaluation of Utah - it's not just evenly-matched teams beating each other up in conference. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 26, 2016 17:29:42 GMT -5
Well Washington lost two top 25 wins from its nitty gritty with the Utah implosion this week, so that I'd a net negative for UW. Frankly I think the whole top 25 wins within conference is kinda silly. I mean, had Utah won against Arizona and Colorado, they would sure have a top 25 rpi, but they didn't. The issue is that Washington won TWICE against Arizona and Colorado (and Utah), so it's almost as if UW gets less credit for beating all three of these teams because those teams all beat each other rather than one of them beating the other two. Washington does have an annoying number of wins against #28 and #52, with 25 and 50 being arbitrary cutoffs. But if they had just beat Stanford at home (a 5-set match they pretty much gave away), then none of this would matter. They did have their chance, and they didn't get done what they needed to get done. |
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on Nov 26, 2016 18:06:51 GMT -5
If Penn State ends up in a bloodbath involving Northwestern and Iowa, then they are CONSIDERABLY worse than they actually are this year because they're capable of losing to Iowa and Northwestern. You mean like last season when Penn St. did lose to Northwestern? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 18:21:25 GMT -5
And UW won't get credit for their win at a very tough Hawaii, either. They will get credit for being sole Pac-12 champion, if they can get past WSU. They did just beat #8 RPI UCLA, however. On the other hand, the Committee could be looking for an excuse to site a regional outside the Central Time Zone. If Kansas is #4 and UW #5, that would be better than going to Nebraska, Minnesota, or Wisconsin. And if Kansas can't host, UW would, unless Hawaii beats UW in the Seattle sub-regional, in which case Hawaii would. Why wouldn't Wash get credit for the Hawaii win? Last I saw from Blue Penguin and Figstats, Hawaii was in the top 25 RPI now. |
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Nov 26, 2016 18:34:16 GMT -5
HOPING for something close to this (if Wisconsin and Nebraska win tonight): 1. Nebraska 16. Western Kentucky/Kansas State/Creighton/who cares 9. North Carolina 8. Florida 5. Washington 12. BYU 13. Michigan State 4. Kansas 3. Minnesota 14. Michigan 11. Stanford 6. Texas 7. Missouri 10. UCLA 15. San Diego 2. Wisconsin Stanford will get the #12 in that scenario trying to ensure a Pac team is represented in the FF. Stanford/Washington one last time for the trip. |
|
